Gay Beehive Delivers Prepared Speech in F&T Meeting - Ends as Expected

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

This was a media play, and "the friend" that posted it being NNN is no coincidence.

Wait, the person who recorded the video and 'shared' it is the same man who deceitfully sneaks into our temples, surreptitiously films sacred events like other people's marriages, and then gleefully 'shares' them online? That's certainly enlightening.

[Calm]

No, he only saw it, asked if he could help, was apparently given a few recordings, which he edited, adding her reading the part she did get to say, iirc.

It was invited friends who recorded it,  In one comment, it sounds like two were specifically asked.  However, in other descriptions, it sounds like a number of others who had been invited and knew what was happening pulled out their phones and started recording as well.

Must have been somewhat startling for the leaders on the stand.

----

He was also promoting it on his YouTube page as well as on Reddit, but he was involved after the fact.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

Then if no waste products will be produced, you are describing a fundamental overhaul of the whole body...lose blood as well, no need for the lymphatic system any more.

It is like removing the skeleton and then claiming that somehow the body is just going to keep walking without any other major adjustment.

Body processes are too interconnected.  Think ripple effect, change one thing here and you have to change hundreds elsewhere to accommodate it.  If the body no longer has to fight off sickness, no longer lives in an polluted environment, we no longer need hairs in our nose and mucus to prevent infection or damage.  We no longer need antibodies or blood so toss all the bone marrow and other blood producing  regulating processes.  If the body no longer produces waste, then we don't need veins since whatever is transported for energy to the cells in our arteries won't have waste that need to be cleaned out.

I am not claiming that the ability to procreate will be absent, but postulating there are huge changes throughout the body due to perfection and the change of blood to something quite different, including changes in major elements of the reproductive system and then suggesting that in no way prevents reproduction from carrying on pretty much as it always has is ignoring how biology actually works, imo.

You can't reject basic biology at one moment and then appeal to it as evidence in the next.

I personally believe that in the resurrection the reproductive systems of the males and females who inherit celestial glory will have the capacity to continue to procreate, but in the celestial kingdom the process of bringing forth human spirit children will be a more refined and exalted processes than the process of procreation as it is now experienced by mortal men and women on this fallen earth. 

One possible clue that may provide a glimpse into how the process of human sexual procreation could work in the celestial world is suggested by the fact that though heavenly parents have material human bodies (as tangible as the body of any mortal man), for some undisclosed reason heavenly parents will not give birth to children with bodies that will be composed the same kind of tangible matter as composes their own bodies. In other words, it appears even though heavenIy parents have bodies that are composed of matter as tangible as the matter that composes the bodies of mortal men and women, their children will have bodies that are not composed of the same kind of tangible matter. Rather, the bodies of spirit children are made of matter intangible to mortal man. So why is it that heavenly parents have tangible material bodies but the bodies of their offspring are (to us) intangible?

Now to the crux of my point. The prophet Joseph Smith taught us that though spirit is made of matter, it's a form of matter that is much finer and purer than the matter we can see, feel and detect all around us in this material universe. In fact, even though spirit must needs have mass (if Joseph Smith is correct), it's so fine and so pure that our current scientific instruments are unable to detect whether or not it exists. So speaking in terms of physics, it can be logically deduced that spirit has far, far less mass than the matter we are accustomed to dealing with in mortality.

So let's just take a wild guess and surmise it could very well be true that the tangible resurrected body of one exalted female has a mass equal to the aggregate physical mass of one billion full-grown spirit bodies. That would mean it would be physically possible for a celestial mother to easily carry a compressed mass equivalent to one million gestating spirit children in her celestialized womb and do so without violating the laws of physics as we currently understand them. Add to this the fact that even in mortality a man releases about 125 million individual sperm each time he completes the sex act and my scenario becomes even more plausible. This would mean all that would have to happen for a heavenly mother to produce millions of spirit children would be to generate millions of eggs (something, it seems, that would be quite easy for an omnipotent and omniscient God to do) making giving birth to a million spirit children at once something that is within the realm of possibility for a glorious kingdom whose inhabitants are possessed of infinite and eternal power.

Now as far as your question about what happens to the mortal digestive system in the resurrection is concerned, let us not forget that after his resurrection the Lord ate fish with his disciples (he drank wine as well) and no doubt swallowed what he ate. So we at least we can assume some parts of the Lord's  digestive system are still perfectly functional. Namely his mouth, teeth, tongue, (saliva?) esophagus, motility function and the stomach. So why wouldn't the rest of his digestive system be intact? And you could very well be right: The digestive system might very well be able to process the ingested fish without any waste. If this is the case, the terminal end of our digestive system will become vestigial, much like the our navels.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

13 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Wait, the person who recorded the video and 'shared' it is the same man who deceitfully sneaks into our temples, surreptitiously films sacred events like other people's marriages, and then gleefully 'shares' them online? That's certainly enlightening.

 

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, he only saw it, asked if he could help, was apparently given a few recordings, which he edited, adding her reading the part she did get to say, iirc.

It was invited friends who recorded it,  In one comment, it sounds like two were specifically asked.  However, in other descriptions, it sounds like a number of others who had been invited and knew what was happening pulled out their phones and started recording as well.

Must have been somewhat startling for the leaders on the stand.

Yeah, I'm sure NNN came across this by accident in his daily travels.
Someone at that meeting gave him the recording.  Why him?  Pretty obvious answer.
And we have no way of knowing if he knew about this in advance as those who had been "invited" knew in advance.

[Hamba Tuhan]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, he only saw it, asked if he could help...also promoting it on his YouTube page as well as on Reddit, but he was involved after the fact.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's sad to me that we've still seen no response from the Brethren regarding this.

I have a Facebook 'friend' (we know each other from way back when I was president of the postgraduate student association) who often tries to drag people into social-media firestorms for his own purposes/amusement. He's tried this with me on several occasions ... and then expressed disgust/disappointment that I just ignore him. I've explained to him a couple of times that I'm just not interested in being his trained monkey, jumping up and dancing for him whenever he starts to play a tune. Unsurprisingly, he tagged me in a New York Times post on this topic this morning. My response: I ignored him again.

If Church leaders want to respond, I'm sure they'll do so on their own terms.

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Yeah, I'm sure NNN came across this by accident in his daily travels.
Someone at that meeting gave him the recording.  Why him?  Pretty obvious answer.
And we have no way of knowing if he knew about this in advance as those who had been "invited" knew in advance.

I am not saying he just stumbled across it.

I kind of doubt he knew about it in advance.  He is certainly open about being involved up front and center in other things and he was sharing stuff right and left that probably might have been better left out of the story, I don't see him as being that restrained about it, but perhaps he was.

I am trying to remember exactly what he said and if it would be omitting details or outright lying.  It could be an omission, I am not going to make the effort to doublecheck.  If you want to do so, feel free.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not going to make the effort to doublecheck.  If you want to do so, feel free.

As a fan of accuracy, I found the following from the person in question:

Quote

I did not record the footage. There is more than one video of the incident. I was contacted by someone who wishes to remain anonymous asking for help with editing and I offered to edit and distribute the video as well as promote the hell out of it. I've spent at least 40 hours in the past ten days editing and promoting the video to every media contact I've made (and a lot of new ones).

 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

The problem is, imo, that is the very attitude that they are fighting against.

Ward members and others generally aren't making offensive comments knowing they will harm others.  Ask them and their response would have been most likely 'no one will be harmed by it'.

And yet there were.

In thinking about this more, how do you feel the bishop was harmed?

[rockpond]

44 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have a Facebook 'friend' (we know each other from way back when I was president of the postgraduate student association) who often tries to drag people into social-media firestorms for his own purposes/amusement. He's tried this with me on several occasions ... and then expressed disgust/disappointment that I just ignore him. I've explained to him a couple of times that I'm just not interested in being his trained monkey, jumping up and dancing for him whenever he starts to play a tune. Unsurprisingly, he tagged me in a New York Times post on this topic this morning. My response: I ignored him again.

If Church leaders want to respond, I'm sure they'll do so on their own terms.

I agree.  As I said, I'm sad they have chosen not to respond. 

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As a fan of accuracy, I found the following from the person in question:

 

Thanks, that is the quote I was thinking of.

[MorningStar]

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 10:11 AM, Tacenda said:

True, and Cinepro had a good point also. I wish the SP would make a statement. The church is so silent it's deafening. 

People will still twist it however they want. 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

I personally believe that in the resurrection the reproductive systems of the males and females who inherit celestial glory will have the capacity to continue to procreate, but in the celestial kingdom the process of bringing forth human spirit children will be a more refined and exalted processes than the process of procreation as it is now experienced by mortal men and women on this fallen earth. 

One possible clue that may provide a glimpse into how the process of human sexual procreation could work in the celestial world is suggested by the fact that though heavenly parents have material human bodies (as tangible as the body of any mortal man), for some undisclosed reason heavenly parents will not give birth to children with bodies that will be composed the same kind of tangible matter as composes their own bodies. In other words, it appears even though heavenIy parents have bodies that are composed of matter as tangible as the matter that composes the bodies of mortal men and women, their children will have bodies that are not composed of the same kind of tangible matter. Rather, the bodies of spirit children are made of matter intangible to mortal man. So why is it that heavenly parents have tangible material bodies but the bodies of their offspring are (to us) intangible?

Now to the crux of my point. The prophet Joseph Smith taught us that though spirit is made of matter, it's a form of matter that is much finer and purer than the matter we can see, feel and detect all around us in this material universe. In fact, even though spirit must needs have mass (if Joseph Smith is correct), it's so fine and so pure that our current scientific instruments are unable to detect whether or not exists. So speaking in terms of physics, it can be logically deduced that spirit has far, far less mass than the matter we are accustomed to dealing with in mortality.

So let's just take a wild guess and surmise it could very well be true that the tangible resurrected body of one exalted female has a mass equal to the aggregate physical mass of one billion full-grown spirit bodies. That would mean it would be physically possible for a celestial mother to easily carry a compressed mass equivalent to one million gestating spirit children in her celestialized womb and do so without violating the laws of physics as we currently understand them. Add to this the fact that even in mortality a man releases about 125 million individual sperm each time he completes the sex act and my scenario becomes even more plausible. This would mean all that would have to happen for a heavenly mother to produce millions of spirit children would be to generate millions of eggs (something, it seems, that would be quite easy for an omnipotent and omniscient God to do) making giving birth to a million spirit children at once something that is within the realm of possibility for a glorious kingdom whose inhabitants are possessed of infinite and eternal power.

Now as far as your question about what happens to the mortal digestive system in the resurrection is concerned, let us not forget that after his resurrection the Lord ate fish with his disciples (he drank wine as well) and no doubt swallowed what he ate. So we at least we can assume some parts of the Lord's  digestive system are still perfectly functional. Namely his mouth, teeth, tongue, (saliva?) esophagus, motility function and the stomach. So why wouldn't the rest of his digestive system be intact? And you could very well be right: The digestive system might very well be able to process the ingested fish without any waste. If this is the case, the terminal end of our digestive system will become vestigial, much like the our navels.

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

You mean something like this?

 

 

 

 

 

Who wrote this?  Sounds like an apologetic response to me, not an official church statement.  Can you share the link?  

[Rain]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Do we know why the bishop wasn't there? To me it seems kinder that he wasn't there, as if they planned it that way so that he wouldn't be in a difficult position...

I really hope not. 

Please consider being in charge of your book club. Your club has made some rules about what can be read. Someone in the club does not like all of your rules so she waits for you to be out of town and then speaks up and tells everyone the rules should be changed.

I realize this is not quite the same thing, but now imagine how you would feel. Wouldn't it bother you that she purposely waited for you to be gone? Would you feel she did that out of kindness for you?

So I really hope this wasn't the case, because that would be worse to me. I'd feel betrayed. 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Rain

[carbon dioxide]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

It's sad to me that we've still seen no response from the Brethren regarding this.  Have they been quoted somewhere in a new story that I missed?

I am glad they have not.  It would just encourage more bad behavior.

[rockpond]

51 minutes ago, Rain said:

I really hope not. 

Please consider being in charge of your book club. Your club has made some rules about what can be read. Someone in the club does not like all of your rules so she waits for you to be out of town and then speaks up and tells everyone the rules should be changed.

I realize this is not quite the same thing, but now imagine how you would feel. Wouldn't it bother you that she purposely waited for you to be gone? Would you feel she did that out of kindness for you?

So I really hope this wasn't the case, because that would be worse to me. I'd feel betrayed. 

It wasn't planned.  They (Savannah and her parents) were surprised when the Bishop was not present at Sacrament Meeting that Sunday. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

• God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.
• Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
• D&C 130:1 When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.
• The blood he spilled upon Mount Calvary he did not receive again into his veins. That was poured out, and when he was resurrected, another element took the place of the blood. It will be so with every person who receives a resurrection; the blood will not be resurrected with the body, being designed only to sustain the life of the present organization. When that is dissolved, and we again obtain our bodies by the power of the resurrection, that which we now call the life of the body, and which is formed from the food we eat and the water we drink will be supplanted by another element; for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God [see 1 Corinthians 15:50] (DBY, 374).
• “As concerning the resurrection I will merely say that all men will come from the grave as they lie down, whether old or young their will not be added unto their stature one cubit neither taken from it. All being raised by the power of God having the spirit of God in their bodies & not Blood ”  Wilford Woodruff
• "God Almighty Himself dwells in eternal fire; flesh and blood cannot go there, for all corruption is devoured by the fire. "Our God is a consuming fire." When our flesh is quickened by the Spirit, there will be no blood in this tabernacle. Some dwell in higher glory than others."  Joseph Smith

As far as I am concerned the idea that our resurrected bodies function completely differently from our mortal ones is the speculation here.
The prophets and scriptures teach that our resurrected bodies are the same as our mortal ones, just more pure in element.
It seems to me we are back to hoofbeats again.  Horses or Zebras.  Every hoofbeat (reference) concerning the resurrection refers to our bodies being of the same design here.  I see no reason to start looking for zebras.

The accounts of the resurrected Jesus eating with his disciples tell me that, though it is not necessary for a resurrected being to consume food, he is capable of doing so if he chooses.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

You mean something like this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Works for me.

As reasonable as Cinepro's draft sounds (and I agree it is very well-worded) I believe it nevertheless would be met with hostility by many elements in society who won't be placated with regard to the Church's stance on this issue. In the long run, I don't think there is anything to be gained by the Church taking official cognizance of an attempt to hijack a worship service, even if one regards the attempt as well-meaning on some level. It would only encourage attempts by others.

The Church has been placed in a no-win situation with this matter, and the best thing is to ignore it.

Edited to add: Furthermore, for the general leadership to make a statement would give yet more global attention to what really is a local matter that is best handled on a local level (and, from what I can tell, was handled as well as could be expected).

 

 

Edited June 23, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

In thinking about this more, how do you feel the bishop was harmed?

Anytime someone is unjustly vilified, he suffers harm, to his reputation if nothing else.

As Shakespeare's Iago expressed it,

Quote

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed.

 

[rockpond]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Anytime someone is unjustly vilified, he suffers harm, to his reputation if nothing else.

As Shakespeare's Iago expressed it,

 

The Bishop wasn't even present.  Has he been vilified?  I've only heard him spoken of in positive terms.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just now, rockpond said:

The Bishop wasn't even present.  Has he been vilified?  I've only heard him spoken of in positive terms.

Sorry, it didn't register that you were talking about the bishop. I thought you were referring to the stake president (or stake presidency member or whatever he was).

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Rain said:

I really hope not. 

Please consider being in charge of your book club. Your club has made some rules about what can be read. Someone in the club does not like all of your rules so she waits for you to be out of town and then speaks up and tells everyone the rules should be changed.

I realize this is not quite the same thing, but now imagine how you would feel. Wouldn't it bother you that she purposely waited for you to be gone? Would you feel she did that out of kindness for you?

So I really hope this wasn't the case, because that would be worse to me. I'd feel betrayed. 

The bishop is Savannah's dad's best friend, don't you think that would put him in a predicament. He would have to choose Savannah or the church. I guess I'm the odd guy out in thinking this way, out of you and Calm. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, rockpond said:

I agree.  As I said, I'm sad they have chosen not to respond. 

I wonder if you're sad or just disappointed this social media isn't being magnified in public the way it would be if the leadership of the Church chose to make a a public issue of it.

[MiserereNobis]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As Shakespeare's Iago expressed it,

I'm all in favor of using Shakespeare to understand the human condition... but maybe using Iago's (contorted) justification for his seemingly meaningless animosity isn't the best choice...?